Lenman Shocks predicts that by 2031, there will only be one streaming service, owned by one conglomerate music group, which will force the other music publishers to pay to have their music streamed,lol! Also, regulations and copyrights will be amended to allow only 1% writer's share brought about by heavy industry lobbying in the year 2022.
All other predictions will require a subscription to Lenberg News.

Well, the only constant is change, and if it'll turn out like they are claiming, I wouldn't mind. Basically, streaming has used the freemium model that Nokia came up with in the 90'ies. I've taken classes in that for research once, and they operate with some progression curves, where they will begin to charge once there is a critical consumer mass. So, I wouldn't write off the claim from Goldman Sachs that fast, even if it is strategically placed in the mainstream media.

The more respectable the source, the more seriously things are taken, and the greater affect on the outcome of the prediction. It would have had a better chance of actually happening if Lenman Shocks had made the prediction instead, because it is a marginal influence.

I wouldn't write off their claims either. If I had any music publishers stock, and saw the share prices increasing, it might be time to unload some or all of that stock,lol!

Streaming revenues are highly dependent on what the consumer is willing or able to pay, and what other options are available, or if they are happy with the service or even the music! There's too many influencing variables to just leave out in making such a prediction. It's not a worthless prediction, just one to keep in context.

This might make it attractive to be providing a streaming service, but do you think that it would mean significant additional revenue to the songwriter? iTunes charges and users pay, but not much of the income reaches me. Why would streaming be different?